Engineering Professional Practice

Question patterns:

Case studies with solution hints:

1) A factory was using a chemical in making a product. The storage tank of the chemical waste, which was hazardous
to health and environment, had a leakage. During inspection Er. A came to know leakage that had already taken
place that might cause adverse impact on health and hygiene of the surroundings. You informed your boss about
the event. Considering the possible social objection he requests you to be silent on the issue and also hints you
that you may have to be out of the job if the case would go into the hands of social reformers. If you were Er. A,
what you would do? Discuss.
Solution:-
Tips 1) Engineering, more than any other profession involves social experimentation. Often one engineer’s
decision affects the safety of countless lives. It is, therefore, important that engineers constantly
remember that their first obligation is to ensure the public’s safety.
Tips 2) Engineering is a profession. A profession is that which is acquired through a specialized training or
education having certain skill those ordinary men does not poses. Because of professional’s knowledge
and skill that ordinary people do not possess and because of they use their knowledge and skill for the
benefit of people and society as a whole, professionals do have high recognition in the society.
Furthermore, their professional practices are also subjected to public evaluation and hence a
professional‘s work cannot be remained as a personal matter.
Tips 3) Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons
and for the physical environment affected by their work.
Tips 4) Fundamental ethical values of code of ethics, which are universal in practice: Protection of life and
safeguarding people; sustainable management and care for the environment
Tips 5) Professionals committing unethical/immoral acts are subjected to a disciplinary action if not institutionally
(as in case of Nepal) but by the public and their public image will become very low.
Tips 6) With reference to above discussions, I will be ready to quit the job, but I won’t stay silent on that case
which is hazardous to public and environment.
2) You are appointed as a consulting engineer in a project where your best friend is supplying material. The
community people knew the fact and asked you to quit the job because you cannot control the quality of the
material. How do you cope with this situation? Discuss ethical aspects related to this situation.
Solution:-
Tips 1) Professionals are bound by code of ethics. They are not free to act as what they desire. Personal &
professional behaviors are controlled by code of ethics prepared by professional association/societies.
Tips 2) Professional engineers shall acts for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees and also act
independently & with fairness & justice to all participants.
Tips 3) With reference to above ethical aspects & background, situations have to be dealt. I will convince the
community that whoever supplies the material, it does not matter. Quality of material will always be
thoroughly checked /verified /tested /measured in accordance to specifications provided to supplier.
Regardless of these logic, if community does not convince, with due respect to my profession I will
quit the job.
3) A trial bridge (suspension bridge) over the Bheri river at Shubhaghat near Mehalkuna bazaar of Surkhet district
collapsed on 25th December,2007. The collapse of the bridge claimed some 18 people’s life and it is speculated
that about 70 persons are missing in the Bheri River. The mishap happened while a large crowed of people
(some eye witnesses claims 500 to 600 persons) were crossing the bridge to participate in a local fair on the
other side of the bank. The bridge is located at about 10 Km NorthEast from the Chhinchu bazaar. The span of
the bridge was 187 meters and was completed construction in the fiscal year 2063/64 (July 2006/June 2007).
This was constructed by DDC-Surkhet, supervised by DTO- Surkhet and the consultant was FACE Consultant,
Kathmandu. The contractor was the DC Nirwan sewa,Nepalgunj. The fabricator of all the elements of the bridge
was Hulas Steel Industries,samara. Nepal government has announced to conduct detail investigation of the
incident. Initially, it was assumed that the bridge failed due to overload. Prior to the incident, the DTO technician
 had allegedly instructed the contractor to tighten up the nuts of the bulldog grips of the main cables. The
Chairperson of the Fair Management Committee has been quoted to say that the contractor has not tightened
the nuts as was required. Preliminary investigations by the SBD engineers seem to indicate that the bridge failed
due to faulty bulldog grips. How would you judge the incident on the ground of professional ethics?

Solution:-
On the ground of professional ethics, the culprits of the incident have been mentioned in prime order as below:
Tips 1) Consultant: Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of
all persons and for the physical environment affected by their work. On this ethical background,
consultant should thoroughly verified/supervised/checked each and every aspects of the constructional
activities and should instructs concerned contractor to rectify faulty works/design immediately
otherwise works should be stopped instantly. This does not seem to be happened.
Tips 2) Supervisor – DTO: Since professional practices are concerned with public safety, welfare of all persons
and for the physical environment affected by their work and also subjected to public evaluation.
Supervising office seems to be unaware of problems regarding nuts of bulldog grips on time.
Tips 3) Contractor: Contractor should have followed the instructions and tighten up the nuts of bulldog grips
immediately. But this action seems to be lack.
Tips 4) Owner: Having knowledge of technical/design fault in the construction of bridge, owner should not have
opened the bridge to the public unless the rectifications have been completed.

4) Er. Satyaman Shrestha was working as a project engineer in a road project in Chitwan. Er. Ramesh Thapa, close
friend of Satyaman was alos working as site engineer in the same project for a construction company.
Construction was in full swing. Ramesh and Satyaman were tired every day after the work. Almost every day,
Ramesh proposes Stayaman for drinks and good foods in the restaurant after work. After few days of work
Satyaman noticed that the ratio of cement mortar used in the stone masonry was 1:6 instead of 1:4 as per
design. Similarly, there was 1:3:6 ratio of mixture instead of 1:2:4 as per design in the PCC and RCC works.
Satyaman complained of this and asked for the reason. Ramesh told to Satyaman that the strength required for
the construction is still safe in the mortar of 1:6 and concrete of 1:3:6 and also this is only the means to cover
the overheads of entertainments and other financial benefits, Ramesh did this. As this action does not affect
the quality of work, Ramesh requested Satyaman to stay silent on this matter and assured Satyaman that he
would be responsible for all the consequences arising if any. How would you judge the role of Satyaman and
Ramesh in ethical ground?

Solution:-
Role of Satyaman & Ramesh in ethical background:

Tips 1) Role of Ramesh:

 Engineer will not attempt to injure falsely or maliciously professional reputation, prospects or
practice of other engineer.
 Similarly, engineer should practices their work within their realm of expertise, they do so in a
fair and ethical manner, and they should place the good of society above their personal gain.
 Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services
rendered that may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the
knowledge and consent of their clients or employers.
 With reference to above ethical scenario, Ramesh fails to do so and his act seems to be
unethical and immoral.
Tips 2) Role of Satyaman:
 If Engineer has proof that engineer has been unethical, illegal or unfair in his practice, he
should be advise to proper his practice of authority.
 Similarly, engineer should practices their work within their realm of expertise, they do so in a
fair and ethical manner, and they should place the good of society above their personal gain.
 Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services
rendered that may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the
knowledge and consent of their clients or employers.
  Regarding above ethical scenario, Satyaman should advise and request Ramesh to be ethical
and practice his authority properly.

5) In a construction project for which you are the consultant’s supervising engineer, the contractor requests you
for preparing his running bill of works done, and assuring you to pay a handsome amount for your work, as his
engineer recently quit the job. How should you respond? Explain your arguments. Write five most important
rule of conduct for a professional engineer considering code of ethics prevalent in Nepal.

Solution:-

Tips 1) Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services rendered that
may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of
their clients or employers.

Tips 2) Professional engineers shall acts for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees and also act
independently & with fairness & justice to all participants.

Tips 3) With reference to above ethical aspects & background, I will not prepare the running bill for the
contractor. If I intended to prepare, it will be against code of ethics and immoral and may be viable for
liability.
Tips 4) Most important rule of conduct for professional engineer:
 Public safety and welfare
 Competence and knowledge
 Sealing and signing
 Faithful agent and trustee
 Conflict of interest

6) Both Mr. Shyam Lal and Ram Lal, consultant engineers, applied on the floor of the building during their
inspection visit, which was under construction, causing serious injury. During investigation it was revealed that
the floor was not constructed as per design and specification making it slippery. The flooring work was
subcontracted to Mr. Hari on Mr. Shyam lal’s recommendation. Who is to blame? Give reasons.
Solution:-
Mr. Shyam Lal should take responsibility for the incidents with reference to the following ethical backgrounds

Tips 1) Professional engineer shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons
and for the physical environment affected by their

Tips 2) Lack of proper inspection and supervision

Tips 3) Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services rendered
that may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the knowledge and
consent of their clients or employers.

7) A RCC bridge was designed by the designer on behalf of consultant. This was constructed by the reputed “A”
class contractor. After the completion of the construction, traffic was allowed on the bridge. After six months of
operation there were cracks in the bridge. A probe team was established by road department. The design
procedure was okay, but it was found that the quality of steel material used was not duly tested. The contractor
argued that the procedure of construction was in accordance with the instruction of engineer and specification,
however, the workmanship was found not as per specification. There was also lack of proper supervision by the
consultant. The design load for the bridge was 20 tons. It was also reported that there happen to pass more than
20 tons vehicles also. The consultant was good friend of contractor. Being a member of probe team, what is your
judgement on the failure of this bridge?
Solution:-
Being a member of a probe team, major responsibility for the failure of RCC bridge must be taken by both
consultant and contractor, which will be my verdict on the following ethical and practical aspects.
 Tips 1) Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all
persons and for the physical environment affected by their work. On this ethical background,
consultant should thoroughly verified/supervised/checked each and every aspects of the
constructional activities and should instructs concerned contractor to rectify faulty works/design
immediately otherwise works should be stopped instantly. This does not seem to be happened.
Tips 2) Contractor should have followed the detailed specification instructions regarding workmanship and
other necessary details.
Tips 3) Professional practices are concerned with public safety, welfare of all persons and for the physical
environment affected by their work and also subjected to public evaluation.

8) Engineer Ramesh Shrestha was working with the contractor in the mega construction project (say construction
of multi-dimensional underground business complex in Kathmandu). You were given responsibility to control
quality of work in the site. The construction company had maintained confidentiality of the incentives and
salary of employees and the state of quality of work as a management tools. One day, Ramesh happen to come
to the office of executive engineer Sudhir, from site.Er. Sudhir was not in his office. While waiting for Er. Sudhir,
Er. Ramesh went through the computer of executive engineer. He opened entire confidential file of incentives
and salaries of employees in the computer. He found differences in the level of salaries and incentives to
different employees. In the mean time Er. Sudhir came to his room and found Ramesh looking confidential file
on the computer. Sudhir was not happy with Ramesh for this act. How do you judge the conduct of Ramesh in
the ethical ground? How should Sudhir react with Ramesh for this behavior?
Solutions:
I think conduct of Ramesh was unethical and immoral with respect to ethical practices as summarized below.
Sudhir should respond it seriously and he should advise, instruct and guide Er. Ramesh regarding the ethical
practices mentioned below immediately so that those sort of incidents never happen again.
Tips 1)
 Professional engineer shall take care that credit for engineering works is given to those
directly responsible for
 Engineer will not attempt to injure falsely or maliciously professional reputation, prospects or
practice of other engineer.
 Similarly, engineer should give due regards to all professional aspects of the engagement
 Professional engineer will not review the work of other engineer for the same client except
with the knowledge of such engineer
 Engineer shall not disclose confidential information without the consent of their clients or
employers, unless the withholding of information is consider contrary to the safety of the
public

9) You are working as a engineer from a consulting firm in Pokhara. Your friend Mr. Ram is working as a project
engineer from contractor in the same project. Mr. Ram invites you for dinner every Friday to celebrate ‘good
Friday’ and requests you to share the guesthouse for your accommodation. What would you do? Prepare a case
study based on code of ethics. Make supplementary assumptions if necessary.

Solution:-
I will reject the offer and invitation on following ethical scenario.

Tips 1) Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services rendered that
may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of
their clients or employers.

Tips 2) Professional engineers shall acts for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees and also act
independently & with fairness & justice to all participants.
10) Er.Narendra Shah was working with the contractor in a construction project (say construction of housing
complex in Kathmandu). He was given the responsibilities to control the quality of work in the site.
Incidentally, material supplier (Ramchandra) in the construction is a friend of Narendra. Owing to the road
blockade and other strikes, Ramchandra was facing difficulty in supplying sand and aggregates as per the
given specification. Sand and aggregate materials was available in the close proximity of the site, but it is
slightly substandard. Ramchandra requested Narendra to allow this material to be used for construction.
Ramchandra convinced Narendra that the strength of concrete shall be produced as per specification even
with the use of substandard materials. Ramchandra also offered to share 50% of the cost saved during this
process. How do you judge the conduct of Narendra and Ramchandra on an ethical ground ?(2066)

Solution:-
I think conduct of Narendra was unethical and immoral as he was convinced with Ram Chandra regarding
technical aspects. If Er. Narendra shares 50% of the cost saved due to supply of sub standard sand and
aggregate materials then, it would also be an unethical and breaching the code of ethics issued by
concerned authority. The conduct of Er. Narenda can be dealt in the prospects of context summarized
below.
Tips 1) Professional engineer shall not be engaged in activities or accept remuneration for services rendered
that may create a conflict of interest with their clients or employers, without the knowledge and
consent of their clients or employers.
Tips 2) Professional engineers shall acts for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees and also
act independently & with fairness & justice to all participants.
Tips 3) Professional practices are concerned with public safety, welfare of all persons and for the physical
environment affected by their work and also subjected to public evaluation.
Incase of Ramchandra , his approach and behavior is more unethical and his activities reflects that he is not
concerned over public safety and welfare. On above issue, it is not clear whether Ramchandra is an engineer
or not. If Ramchandra is an engineer , then his conduct can be dealt with reference to code of conduct &
code of ethics, and conclusion will be drawn that his conduct is unprofessional and unethical and he is not
aware of his engineering skill and knowledge.
11) During quality control visit in a remote village, it has been found that a building is being constructed on the
bank of river, and it will be damaged due to flood. Approximately 20% of the construction was completed.
The survey was done by your friend with the consent of the local people. However, the quality of
construction was as per specification. Your job is limited to control the quality of the building only. Discuss
the case and recommend your views on whether to continue the construction or not. (2067)
Solution:
I will recommend to stop the construction work despite the work is running according to specs. Though
there are several measures to mitigate the flood, the building which is constructed near bank of river is
always vulnerable to damage & possibility of washed away. So rather taking risk, it is better to stop the
construction work although the 20% work has been completed. Money must not & won’t be a prime &
important factor as compare to human life & safety.
Surveyor as my friend should not have design the building in such a vulnerable area. He should have
convinced the public (despite the consent given by people) regarding the possibility & scale of damage to be
abided by the village people. He should be aware of his professional code of conduct & liabilities of his duty.
It is also a fact that characteristics & its flow pattern of the flood are well known by surveyor than village
people.
Surveyor conducts shall be deal with following context
Tip) Professional practices are concerned with public safety, welfare of all persons and for the physical
environment affected by their work and also subjected to public evaluation.